Bail: A Right or Discretion—A Jurisprudential Analysis
Keywords:
bail, right, trial, punishment, detention, discretion.Abstract
It is clearly evident that the investigation as well as the justice delivery mechanism of India is not efficient enough to provide speedy investigation as well as speedy justice. Under such circumstances it is in the interest of natural justice that neither the victim nor the accused shall be allowed to suffer solely because of this inefficiency. It is due to this principle that the provision of bail is an indispensable element of the criminal justice system. But the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a wide range of discretionary powers upon the Courts in the matters of bail. This leads to the inception of a doubt that whether the nature of fundamental rights is being diluted? The answer to this question lies in the approach which has been adopted by the Code, i.e., whether it is whimsical or guided by the judicial spirit? This paper is a quest to find out the answer to this question.
References
1. Vol III, Sir William Blackstone’s, Commentaries on Laws of England 290 (London 1844).
2. Public Prosecutor v. George Williams Victor. MANU/TN/0336/1951.
3. Vinod Solanki v. Union of India. (2008) 16 SCC 537.
4. Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355.
5. Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI. (2012) 8 SCC 495.
6. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra. (2011) 1 SCC 694.
7. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260.
8. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. (2014) 8 SCC 273.
9. Common Cause v. Union of India. (1996) 4 SCC 33.
10. R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh. (1996) 3 SCC 422.
11. Akhtari Bai v. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355.
12. Nagendra Nath Chakrabarti v. Emperor. MANU/WB/0119/1923.
13. Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson. MANU/UP/0014/1931.
14. Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (1978) 1 SCC 240.
